DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Anyone with thoughts on Denver’s sidewalk ballot initiative? Seems like great idea and awful, awful execution. Par for the course for the group that brought us the roundabouts on Denver’s shared streets that actually made biking MORE dangerous.

Feel like this needs to be taken up through general fund obligations (rather than randomly punishing homeowners on corner lots or on certain streets - these aren’t individuals that contribute more to the problem nor that benefit disproportionately from sidewalks) or through an incentive based system (reimburse owners for making repairs) - but it’s hard to think of a less equitable, worse thought out approach than the one on the ballot.

Pretty confident an unintended consequence is that homeowners will immediately cease to make any sidewalk repairs on their own and it will likely be years before the city has an inventory, let alone replacement plan in place. I would expect sidewalks to get noticeably worse under this measure before they get better

But again these people had years to think about traffic calming measures and when the covid opportunity reared its head, they flopped horribly and proposed half baked solutions to the city that left pedestrians, bikers, and driver worse off

Your comments are spot on.

The reason we can't just use the General Fund, which is massive, for sidewalks is because they're too busy creating a new class of 5,000 or more people who are completely dependent on City Hall hand to mouth. They're spending around $100,000 per person of the General Fund on sponsoring people experiencing homelessness and making Denver the homeless capital of the world, which they deem a worthier cause than anything else on the agenda. Our tax dollars have been shifted to that priority.

Denver is funding housing vouchers, meal vouchers, basic income programs (only for unhoused trans and women), workforce training, free healthcare, and more. You also want sidewalks?? If we want sidewalks they say, put more new taxes on the ballot; Denver can't afford sidewalks.

This is of course a sad joke, but it's just par for the course for special interests controlling the largesse of the most affluent American cities (SF, Seattle, LA, Portland, Denver, Boston, DC, etc). These cities will all be okay because they are beautiful, popular, and rich like a Kardashian, but not without damage and opportunity costs also like a Kardashian.

Denver could literally build 5 miles of subway every year for what the city/state/federal and non-profit sectors spend to further homelessness in Metro Denver in a single year.

This is just the simple truth of where we're at in Denver today, and what scares me, is how much worse it might get once Hancock leaves office. Hancock is actually a very effective and rational leader for Denver, so naturally everyone hates his guts it seems.

[Robert.hampton]

The ordinance itself - and the analogue for the whole program - is based on the City's existing stormwater fee. The stormwater fee is charged directly proportionate to how much impervious area each lot has - the thinking being that the more pavement you have, the more impact you cause, and therefore the more you benefit from the program. It's actually intended to be equitable, rather than "randomly punishing."

And this is why the proposal is so foolish. For storm water it absolutely makes sense - the less impervious area your property has the more stress you are putting on the cities wastewater system. Of course your fees should be proportionate.

There is ZERO parallel for sidewalks. It’s a common good. People on corner lots don’t use sidewalks more than anyone else. They don’t damage sidewalk more than anyone else. Residents of apartments, proportionately, use sidewalks and cause wear and tear on sidewalks far more than the owner of SFH on a corner lot. There’s just no parallel to wastewater where impervious area has a clear correlation to storm water use.

It’s a stupid, stupid analogue and just reinforces the idea that this proposed fee was not accompanied with serious thinking (I have many other issues with your argument but this is the most obvious)

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

And this is why the proposal is so foolish. For storm water it absolutely makes sense - the less impervious area your property has the more stress you are putting on the cities wastewater system. Of course your fees should be proportionate.

There is ZERO parallel for sidewalks. It’s a common good. People on corner lots don’t use sidewalks more than anyone else. They don’t damage sidewalk more than anyone else. Residents of apartments, proportionately, use sidewalks and cause wear and tear on sidewalks far more than the owner of SFH on a corner lot. There’s just no parallel to wastewater where impervious area has a clear correlation to storm water use.

It’s a stupid, stupid analogue and just reinforces the idea that this proposed fee was not accompanied with serious thinking (I have many other issues with your argument but this is the most obvious)

I understand all of this, but the reality is also that this system, by virtue of being the least bad option, is exactly how every other major city in the country handles this issue, via a tax or fee assessed to the property owner on the basis of property value or property frontage.

Denver is the last remaining major city where it is still the responsibility of the property owner.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING this government does is in some sense a public good.

We have stormwater drains so that it isn’t the case that when it rains, everyone’s property floods (thereby providing both a personal and a public service), but the cost of the infrastructure comes disproportionately from larger plots and plots with more impervious cover and so we charge those property owners more in an absolute sense (but the same in a relative sense).

Likewise, we have sidewalks so that when a person goes outside of their house, they can connect with the outside world and allow others to do so as well (thereby providing both a personal and a public service), but the cost of the infrastructure comes disproportionately from larger plots of land and corner plots and so we charge those property owners more in an absolute sense (but the same in a relative sense).

And as others have said, this new system would be no more and no less equitable than the current system in the way that it is funded (property owners will essentially have to pay the same thing, and usually less, as what they’d pay to replace their sidewalks), but because of the way that it will be executed will be way more effectual, it will produce a more equitable outcome, which is the point of equitability anyway: more than only the homeowners will now be able to get around this city, which include renters and the disabled, who will no longer have to use streets to walk or use their wheelchair. THAT is equitability.

Having a storm drain system that is patchwork, where some properties which have drains are intermingled with many who do not, will not provide an effective public service, which is why most municipalities enforce the system on all and benchmark the funding to how the money is dispensed across space. Would it be equitable, should there be a flat fee, for owners of small lots to have to front the cost of the additional infrastructure required by a larger lot, or should that additional cost be born by the property owner of that large parcel? Likewise with sidewalks. And it is NOT as if renters will not pay this cost at the end of the day, as the market will respond by raising rent when property owners of multi-family complexes start getting bills. The renters do pay, they are just paying the landlords, so that the landlords can pay Uncle Denver.

This is the fundamental difference between cities and suburbs in America. Cities generally do not expect small property owners to bare more than their actually fair share, wheres suburbs infrastructure is generally subsidized by the cities themselves and, within themselves, don’t get fine grained with properties enough to even care how big they are and levy a flat fee or, in most cases, the infrastructure provided by the developers is so new that it hasn’t yet required upgrades or is in such a state of disrepair because the suburb expects the homeowner to take care of it. Is Denver a suburb of Aurora? To my knowledge, Aurora handles sidewalks in a manner consistent with the sidewalk petition.

You bought the land, you pay for any infrastructure via a tax, levy, or fee which the city has placed in any easement. That is a generally an assumption of property ownership. And it is also generally true that more land means more infrastructure.

[TakeFive]

Clearly a lot of time and effort went into this initiative. There's a sizable core group of people that want this to happen.

This could be a year when those lacking knowledge or disinterested might be less likely to vote for something compared to recent past elections.

But if you can reach out to people, engage them, give them a good reason to vote for sidewalks it could make an important difference.

Advocates hit the streets in support of Denver sidewalks ballot measure
Oct 09, 2022 By: Russell Haythorn - 7 Denver News

Dominic Hughes spent much of his weekend pounding the pavement, in an effort to improve the pavement. “I like talking to people,” Hughes said. “It’s an important issue.” Hughes and other advocates fanned out in the Highlands neighborhood this weekend.

Homeowner Allison Sambish is just hearing of this initiative, but her initial reaction is more supportive than not. “I had not heard about it until I got the flyers,” Sambish said. “My initial thoughts are, it makes a lot of sense – especially around here. There are some really uneven and unsafe sidewalks."

“It’s definitely something I need to look into and see how much of an impact it will be to me as a homeowner, financially," Sambish said. “I think my $107 would be worth it."

[TakeFive]

Well articulated

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And it is NOT as if renters will not pay this cost at the end of the day, as the market will respond by raising rent when property owners of multi-family complexes start getting bills. The renters do pay, they are just paying the landlords, so that the landlords can pay Uncle Denver.

Apartments could be a bit of a conundrum.

Most apartments were required to provide adequate sidewalks when they were built. But unless landlords are specifically lobbying against the initiative it would be the perception of tenants (that vote) how this initiative would impact them. If they see where they live as already having adequate sidewalks that might dissuade them from voting for an initiative that might increase their rent.
-----------------------

Totally agree with respect to Mayor Hancock

Originally Posted by gopokes21

This is just the simple truth of where we're at in Denver today, and what scares me, is how much worse it might get once Hancock leaves office. Hancock is actually a very effective and rational leader for Denver, so naturally everyone hates his guts it seems.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This is the fundamental difference between cities and suburbs in America. Cities generally do not expect small property owners to bare more than their actually fair share, wheres suburbs infrastructure is generally subsidized by the cities themselves and, within themselves, don’t get fine grained with properties enough to even care how big they are and levy a flat fee or, in most cases, the infrastructure provided by the developers is so new that it hasn’t yet required upgrades or is in such a state of disrepair because the suburb expects the homeowner to take care of it.

I'm not sure this analysis is accurate. There are two classes of suburbs. Post war to mid 1980's and mid 1980-'s to today. Generally speaking, the older burbs fall into your comment about cities subsidizing them, but not to the extent your comment implies. Even in the post war burbs, the original developers built considerable amounts of infrastructure like parks, regional storm water detention, sidewalks, walking trails, etc. In the post 1980's suburbs, they are nearly 100% autonomous and definitely not subsidized by cities.

I would assert that many of the largest suburbs in the Denver metro actually started as private developments that essentially built the infrastructure which Towns then took over for themselves (for free). Yes there was a Town first and that Town required the infrastructure, but the Towns didn't spend the money building the infrastructure. Water is the one area Town's have been leading since the 1980's by purchasing water rights on their own with local resources but also by instating large fees from the private sector in order to accomplish the water acquisitions. Post 1980's, the burdens of infrastructure have almost been exclusively on private sector to finance - which has been accomplished mainly through special district financing.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Well articulated


Apartments could be a bit of a conundrum.

Most apartments were required to provide adequate sidewalks when they were built. But unless landlords are specifically lobbying against the initiative it would be the perception of tenants (that vote) how this initiative would impact them. If they see where they live as already having adequate sidewalks that might dissuade them from voting for an initiative that might increase their rent.
-----------------------

Totally agree with respect to Mayor Hancock

Some of the old apartments (think Cap Hill) and slumlords have crappy sidewalks, but I suspect if we did an inventory the vast majority of apartment owners have what we would call compliant sidewalks. The ADA lawyers are a very active bunch and they go after non-compliant owners. Similar to construction defects attorneys chasing business, the ADA attorneys are sophisticated and well funded. Apartment owners generally spend significant resources ensuring compliance with ADA, so I suspect there wouldn't be a material impact to rent due to the sidewalk measure.

In my anecdotal experience walking the streets of Denver, the vast majority of the problems come from residential homeowners and operating businesses. The businesses are more concerning to me, personally, because they are typically on busier corridors often times with transit and represent a much more significant risk to those with mobility issues.

An option for commercial corridors (ilo of this ordinance) could be the City saying, 'form a BID or else we will contract replacement of the non-compliant sidewalks, curbs, etc and bill it back to each owner'. I'd be curious to see what folks think, but I am generally of the opinion that having many more BIDs in business districts and along commercial corridors would sort of lead to an unofficial City beautiful movement with noticeable improvements in mobility that you wouldn't necessarily experience on residential streets.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

And this is why the proposal is so foolish. For storm water it absolutely makes sense - the less impervious area your property has the more stress you are putting on the cities wastewater system. Of course your fees should be proportionate.

There is ZERO parallel for sidewalks. It’s a common good. People on corner lots don’t use sidewalks more than anyone else. They don’t damage sidewalk more than anyone else. Residents of apartments, proportionately, use sidewalks and cause wear and tear on sidewalks far more than the owner of SFH on a corner lot. There’s just no parallel to wastewater where impervious area has a clear correlation to storm water use.

It’s a stupid, stupid analogue and just reinforces the idea that this proposed fee was not accompanied with serious thinking (I have many other issues with your argument but this is the most obvious)

But isn't the property owner on the corner on the hook for that much more to repair their sidewalk under the current system or responsibility for one's property? It does feel proportional given the fee is based on linear feet of sidewalk and I do get the analogy. It's not by potential use, but rather by cost of maintenance/replacement.

I think that the should spend more on inspections and really start to hammer upkeep of the sidewalks by property owners. Once the city starts to impose liens for failure to upkeep and forecloses on the homes maybe then we can get city residents to take notice of the issue.

[rds70]

A couple of additional renderings of the Bell Park Tower from the developer’s presentation to the LDDRC (the project was approved, BTW):

[Ndj]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Once the city starts to impose liens for failure to upkeep and forecloses on the homes maybe then we can get city residents to take notice of the issue.

You want to foreclose on people's homes in order to maintain sidewalks? Jesus christ, get a grip.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But isn't the property owner on the corner on the hook for that much more to repair their sidewalk under the current system or responsibility for one's property? It does feel proportional given the fee is based on linear feet of sidewalk and I do get the analogy. It's not by potential use, but rather by cost of maintenance/replacement.

The proposed fee is very loosely relative to the liability a property owner carries, but doesn't carry any relationship with the cost of replacement or repair and punishes property owners that have been keeping their sidewalks up to date. Homeowner that don't have any sidewalks (much higher costs to install new rather than repair) pay the same fee as homeowners with well maintained sidewalks. Same for residents with flagstone sidewalks. And developers in opportunity zones, for a completely inexplicable reason, get a discount on their contribution to the fee structure. And apartment owners as a whole are practically completely off the hook despite the fact they have a much more proportionate impact on sidewalk use (10,0000 people in an apartment building obviously use sidewalks more than 1 person in a SFH).

Perhaps the most asinine example of how poorly thought out this fee structure is - homeowners on residential arterials pay the same fee as Mixed use streets which is 40% more (3.58 per linear foot) than residents on residential collectors. However, Denver's Complete Street Guidelines show the width of residential collectors as the exact same as residential arterials. So why are they feed at such a higher rate?

This is a half baked proposal - just super lame and disheartening. I would love to vote for more sidewalks, but basing this on the stormwater fee structure was just fucking stupid.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by rds70

A couple of additional renderings of the Bell Park Tower from the developer’s presentation to the LDDRC (the project was approved, BTW):

I hope that the surrounding parking lots get similar projects to develop a cluster of height in that area.

[TakeFive]

Where's EngiNerd when we need him?

Denver Deserves Sidewalks’ plan may actually take almost 30 years to complete, according to city’s analysis
Oct 12, 2022 By Nathaniel Minor/Denverite

It appears we have a clash of cultures, that of DOTI and the Denver Streets Partnership.

But the city’s analysis of the measure (pg 32), produced for its official voter guide, casts doubt on the campaign’s claims. It predicts the timeline to plan, repair and construct sidewalks would take approximately 27.5 years — triple the estimate of advocates.

“The timeline of nine years established by this initiative cannot be achieved due to the capacity requirements that would be placed on both the City and County of Denver’s resources as well as those of the various industries involved, such as limited concrete availability,” the analysis reads.

As one who loves to ask "What could possibly go wrong" but lacking an engineering or sidewalk construction background I didn't know what questions to ask.

It predicts a shortfall of $2.8 billion after nine years and $7.3 billion after including the cost of acquiring the land necessary for sidewalk widening and new sidewalk construction.

“It is unclear how this gap will be addressed and if there will be any cost to constituents,” the analysis says.

One can certainly respect the time and effort put forward by the "renegade" We Deserve Sidewalks initiative but the lack of any coordination with DOTI is concerning. I can only imagine various engineering and Right-of-Way challenges becoming more than a small headache. Read the article for yourself; it's relatively well written.

[TakeFive]

One of These


Image courtesy of Choice Markets

Is going to go Here

EDIT at RiNo - 3463 Walnut St.


Photo courtesy Zocalo Communities

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Where's EngiNerd when we need him?

Denver Deserves Sidewalks’ plan may actually take almost 30 years to complete, according to city’s analysis
Oct 12, 2022 By Nathaniel Minor/Denverite

It appears we have a clash of cultures, that of DOTI and the Denver Streets Partnership.

As one who loves to ask "What could possibly go wrong" but lacking an engineering or sidewalk construction background I didn't know what questions to ask.

One can certainly respect the time and effort put forward by the "renegade" We Deserve Sidewalks initiative but the lack of any coordination with DOTI is concerning. I can only imagine various engineering and Right-of-Way challenges becoming more than a small headache. Read the article for yourself; it's relatively well written.

DOTI also suggests the fees need to be nearly 5x higher to build out the infrastructure proposed. What a joke - I find it incredibly disingenuous to suggest ‘substantial thought and effort’ went into this measure.

They put about as much thought and effort into this as they did into their roundabouts on 16th.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

DOTI also suggests the fees need to be nearly 5x higher to build out the infrastructure proposed. What a joke - I find it incredibly disingenuous to suggest ‘substantial thought and effort’ went into this measure.

They put about as much thought and effort into this as they did into their roundabouts on 16th.

Would you like me to send you the cost estimating and financial model? A lot of thought and effort did go into it. More than the City has ever done on the topic.

DOTI is wrong. And they don’t want to do it. Which is totally their prerogative, for now.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Where's EngiNerd when we need him?

Denver Deserves Sidewalks’ plan may actually take almost 30 years to complete, according to city’s analysis
Oct 12, 2022 By Nathaniel Minor/Denverite

It appears we have a clash of cultures, that of DOTI and the Denver Streets Partnership.

As one who loves to ask "What could possibly go wrong" but lacking an engineering or sidewalk construction background I didn't know what questions to ask.

One can certainly respect the time and effort put forward by the "renegade" We Deserve Sidewalks initiative but the lack of any coordination with DOTI is concerning. I can only imagine various engineering and Right-of-Way challenges becoming more than a small headache. Read the article for yourself; it's relatively well written.

There was coordination with DOTI. “It’s impossible” isn’t a satisfying answer though, and that’s DOTI’s answer.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

The proposed fee is very loosely relative to the liability a property owner carries, but doesn't carry any relationship with the cost of replacement or repair .

The fee is not loosely proportionate to the liability - it is directly proportionate.

It is also directly proportionate to the cost of replacement or repair. Not loosely - directly.

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Homeowner that don't have any sidewalks (much higher costs to install new rather than repair) pay the same fee as homeowners with well maintained sidewalks.

In time, even today's currently well-maintained sidewalks will have to be repaired or replaced too. It is true that missing sidewalks come first, so the direct benefit people experience will not come all at once. That was a policy choice - and is true of every government service. This one is actually different, arguably, in that every property that pays will eventually benefit. There are plenty of things I pay for that I will never use at all.

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

And developers in opportunity zones, for a completely inexplicable reason, get a discount on their contribution to the fee structure.

This is inaccurate. Property owners in NEST areas get a discount. That is how the City identifies neighborhoods that have been historically underinvested in. Many different approaches for lessening the burden somewhat in these areas were considered - this was the one chosen. (And NEST areas are not the same as opportunity zones.)

The ordinance makes no changes to developer's obligations to improve sidewalks. Developers have to do everything they have to do today.

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

And apartment owners as a whole are practically completely off the hook despite the fact they have a much more proportionate impact on sidewalk use (10,0000 people in an apartment building obviously use sidewalks more than 1 person in a SFH).

This is a good point - and was heavily discussed in crafting the measure. In the end, doing it by property ownership/frontage was selected because the amount of concrete is what drives cost, and the sidewalk needs of large lot single family homes are greater. The goal was to create a sustainable long-term program for first constructing, and then maintaining, sidewalks citywide.

Unlike roads, sidewalk usage doesn't really drive sidewalk deterioration. A sidewalk with 1,000 pedestrians doesn't really wear faster than one with 10 pedestrians on it.

You could argue that more efficient users of infrastructure - dense apartment dwellers - shouldn't be "punished" (a word you are fond of using) relative to the less efficient, and more costly, users of the same type of infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

homeowners on residential arterials pay the same fee as Mixed use streets which is 40% more (3.58 per linear foot) than residents on residential collectors. However, Denver's Complete Street Guidelines show the width of residential collectors as the exact same as residential arterials. So why are they feed at such a higher rate?

This is not exactly correct - you have to look at which streets are categorized in which way. Which was done - poring over DOTI GIS maps categorizing streets, because the street classifications do not perfectly align with the street classifications in the planning documents. And some very large streets are inexplicably categorized as collectors; and some other streets that are not what any of us would think of as arterials are categorized that way for traffic purposes. The categories you flag are the ones that mismatch the most - but that's not a product of the proposal - it's a product of the City's classifications, and the proposal attempts to correct for ground truth as much as possible. The fees by category are intended to align with intended sidewalk width - plain and simple.

Is it possible there are some streets where a resident is charged as if there's a 10' sidewalk and it'll only ever be a 6'? Yes, quite possibly. But that is a very small number and is not intentional. It's inherent in any citywide program. Most importantly, it can be fixed.

It is an ordinance, not the bloody constitution. Do I expect a clean-up ordinance in a few years? I hope so. The City doesn't actually do that as often as it should, with nearly every other program that has similar mismatches.

But we should work to improve these things. Not find the one or two imperfections, and then as a result, trash the whole endeavor. Which you seem keen to do. If you can do better, offer concrete (pun intended) suggestions. I doubt you will come up with much that was not already discussed robustly in crafting this proposal. But would love to hear areas for improvement. Trying to categorize 18,187,845 linear feet of sidewalk (which the City's data does not track by width) into a fee structure that can be administered, understood, and is somewhat equitable, is not easy.

It would be great if the City's leaders had actually taken it upon themselves to have the hard conversations, and perhaps they could have crafted a more equitable approach; although I think this is probably not wildly different from where they'd come out. It's much easier to poke holes than to create. But to say something can't be done - assuming a person thinks the thing should be done - just because it is difficult... that I'll never personally accept.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The fee is not loosely proportionate to the liability - it is directly proportionate.

That is simply false. 50' of sidewalk is 50' of liability. Your liability isn't 40% higher if you sidewalk is designated by the city as an arterial vs a collector.

It is also directly proportionate to the cost of replacement or repair. Not loosely - directly.

Again, not true. Putting new sidewalks in where they don't exist is far more expensive than repairing a single slab. Repairing a heavily damaged 50' section of sidewalk is far more expensive than repairing sidewalk which doesn't need repairs (cost: 0). Repairing a flagstone sidewalk is exponentially more expensive than concrete. None of this is reflected in the fees.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Would you like me to send you the cost estimating and financial model? A lot of thought and effort did go into it. More than the City has ever done on the topic.

DOTI is wrong. And they don’t want to do it. Which is totally their prerogative, for now.

Did your financial model include developing new concrete batch plants and removing trees from the city's of right of way for new sidewalks, as was suggested is 'part of the plan' to rebut DOTI in the article?